Delhi District Court
State vs Amarjit Kumar Yadav on 18 September, 2007
IN THE COURT OF MS.DEEPA SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : DELHI
SC No. 13/06
FIR No. 526/05
PS NDLS
U/s 186/353/333 IPC
State Versus Amarjit Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Lalbehari Yadav
R/o Village Laxmi Nagar Notanwa,
P.S. Jara, Distt. Maharanganj (U.P.)
& Jhuggi No. 515 Laxmi Nagar Pushta,
Hathiwala, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution case as made out in the challan is that on 26.06.05, Constable Narender lodged a DD No. 14 A that Constable Amar Singh had received injuries due to slip and that he was taking him to Lady Hardinge Hospital. This DD was handed over to SI Brijesh Malik who, alongwith Constable Devender reached at the Hospital. He went to the hospital and recorded statement of Constable Amar Singh, the injured. The case of the prosecution is that Constable Amar Singh had stated that when he was apprehending a suspect near general coach, he slipped and fell down and received injuries and he did not want any inquiry into the matter. DD No. 14 A was filed vide DD No. 15 A. Constable Amar Singh remained on medical rest from 26.06.05 to 7.09.05. He made a complaint in the Police Station on 18.11.05. In that complaint, he had stated that on 26.06.05, he was on patrolling duty at platform no. 6 and 7. At about 3 p.m., when he reached near general coach of Lichvi Express train, Nizamuddin side, HC Devender handed him over one suspect and told him to hand over that person to SI Brijesh Malik at PS and also informed SHO. When he reached at Central Bridge with that suspect, he took out ustara and hit him on his right hand and on the left side of his neck and the suspect managed to run away. He raised an alarm and Constable Narender reached there and took him to the hospital. He was very perplexed due to heavy bleeding and thereafter he went on medical rest. When he returned after medical rest on 7.09.05 and joined his duty at PS, he came to know that the person Amarjit Singh, who caused him injury had been arrested and confined to jail u/s 107/151 Cr.PC dated 27.06.05. On this complaint of Constable Amar Singh, the FIR was registered and the investigation was done by SI Satish Rana. He prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of witnesses and on 24.11.05 arrested the accused Amarjit formally. He also collected the result of MLC. Doctor had opined the nature of injuries as grievous. Constable Amar Singh had also lodged certain complaints against the staff which were not found true but departmental inquiry had been ordered by the senior officers against those persons. Challan was filed for the offences u/s 186 IPC, u/s 353 IPC and u/s 333 IPC.
2. On these facts charges for the offences u/s 186 IPC, u/s 353IPC and u/s 333 IPC were framed against accused. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses.
3. PW1 HC Abhimanyu is a formal witness who was working as a Duty Officer on 26.06.05 from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. who recorded DD No. 14 A and has proved it as Ex.PW7/A.
4. PW2 Inspector Ishwar Singh, SHO has submitted that on 10.01.06, complainant Constable Amar Singh was working as his subordinate. In the capacity of Senior Officer of Constable Amar Singh, he filed a complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC directly in the Court of Ld. CMM which is Ex.PW2/A.
5. PW3 Constable Narender Singh has stated that his duty was on 26.06.05 at platform no. 6 and 7 of NDLS and he was going from North side to South side and near Central Bridge, he met Constable Amar Singh in injured condition at about 3.30 p.m. and he admitted him in Lady Hardinge Hospital. He has submitted that Amar Singh told him that while he was catching a miscreant, he slipped and sustained injuries.
6. PW4 HC Devender Singh has stated that on 26.06.04, he had gone to platform no. 6 to see some person in Lichvi Express and was also on official duty in PS NDLS. He has further stated that on that day, he had apprehended the accused person in Court, i.e. Amarjit Yadav on the basis of suspicion and handed over the custody of the accused to Constable Amar Singh and directed him to take the accused to police station. He has further stated that he was shown dossier by Constable Amar Singh and after seeing the dossier, he identified the accused and the dossier of the accused is Ex.PW4/A.
7. PW5 HC Om Prakash has stated that on 18.11.05, he was working as Duty Officer at PS NDLS (Crime) and was on duty from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. On that day, he received a rukka at about 8 p.m. from SHO and on the basis of that, he recorded the FIR in the present case which is Ex.PW5/A and also made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW5/B.
8. PW7 is also a formal witness who has proved on record the DD No. 10 B regarding patrolling duty of various police officials on 26.06.05 which is proved as Ex.PW7/A.
9. PW8 has stated that on 24.11.05, he was working as a Naib Court in the Railway Court in Room No. 148, Tis Hazari and on that day, IO had formally arrested the accused of this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/C.
10. PW9 Dr. Surya Vikram had medically examined the injured, Constable Amar Singh and has stated that he had examined the patient on 26.06.05 and prepared the MLC Ex.PW9/A. He has further stated that on 2.12.05, after going through the MLC of the patient, he gave his opinion regarding nature of injuries as grievous vide endorsement Ex.PW9/A and the orthopaedician has also given his opinion on the MLC.
11. PW10 has proved on record DD No. 12 B as Ex.PW10/A and MLC of Amarjit Yadav on same DD as Ex.PW10/B.
12. PW11 is the record clerk who has proved on record the MLC of injured as Ex.PW11/A being prepared in the handwriting of Dr. Karan Yadav who had left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.
13. PW6 is the injured. He has clearly stated that on 26.06.05, he was posted at PS NDLS as Constable and was on patrolling duty from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. He has also stated that at about 3 p.m., when he reached towards Nizamuddin side railway station between platform no. 6 and 7 where Lichvi Express was standing, he met HC Devender outside the general coach of the train and he handed him over one person who was the accused person in court and asked him to take him to the PS and hand over to SI Brijesh Malik and that he did not explain the reason of the arrest of the accused. He has further stated that as he was taking the accused, accused tried to release himself and then he caught hold of him firmly. The accused, thereafter, attacked him with the ustara on his right hand as well as on his neck and then ran away from the spot. He has further stated that he raised an alarm and Constable Narender came for his help and took him to the PS instead of taking him to the hospital. SI Brijesh Malik was standing outside the PS who asked Constable Narender to take him to the hospital in TSR. He has further stated that on the way to Lady Hardinge Hospital, a telephonic message was received on his wireless from Chitta Munshi that he need not get the MLC prepared as SHO Ishwar Singh is ready to get him treated from a private hospital. He has further deposed that since he was bleeding profusely, he asked HC Narender to get him admitted in Lady Hardinge Hospital and thereafter, he was admitted in the Lady Hardinge Hospital. He has further stated that SI Brijesh Malik and HC Devender also reached at the hospital and further told him that SHO had asked that he should be treated in a private hospital and that his medical rest would also be sanctioned. He has stated that he was having plaster on the right hand for support. The signatures were obtained on a blank paper at the instance of HC Brijesh Malik and HC Devender forcibly. He was thereafter brought back to Police Station. SHO Ishwar Singh and SI Brijesh Malik told him that earlier also, some anti-social element had injured our Police Force persons and hence this news need not be leaked out to media, otherwise, Delhi Police would be defamed. He has stated that he, however, got himself treated in government hospital as well as private hospital. When he joined his duties after medical rest, he came to know that accused Amarjit Yadav was a dangerous person and a pick-pocketer and is involved in so many cases. He brought this fact to the notice of SI Brijesh Malik and SHO but they did not pay any heed to his advice. He has further stated that he came to know that DD No. 14A and 15A dated 26.06.05 were wrongly entered on false statement that he had sustained injuries due to slip of his foot. He has further deposed that he came to know that the accused Amarjit Yadav who had attacked him, had been arrested vide DD No.17D u/s 107/151 Cr.PC. He has further deposed that he is a poor and sincere police official who has been victimised by the senior police officials in connivance with the accused person in the Court. He has stated that he made complaints to ACP and DCP and CP also to this effect and he was threatened by SI Brijesh Malik, SHO Ishwar Singh and HC Devender for facing dire consequences and even up to losing his job. He has submitted that he has suffered physical as well as mental agony due to the behaviour of senior police officials and due to the attack of the accused. He has further submitted that if he gets any injury, he would commit suicide due to their constant behaviour and they would be responsible for it. He has stated that on 18.11.05, he lodged a complaint to the ACP which is Ex.PW6/A. After making all his efforts to punish the culprit, the FIR was registered on 19.11.05. IO took him at the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/B on his pointing out. On 24.11.05, he identified the accused in the Court and on his identification, accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/C.
14. IO of this case, SI Satish Rana has been examined as PW12. He has stated that on 18.11.05, the investigation of this case was marked to him and he prepared a site plan Ex.PW6/B at the instance of the complainant Constable Amar Singh. He has further stated that he arrested the accused on 24.11.05 vide memo Ex.PW6/C. He also obtained the sanction u/s 195 Cr.PC for the prosecution of the accused. He also obtained the result and filed the challan after completing the investigation.
15. Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded. Accused has denied all the evidences against him as incorrect and has submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. The accused has not produced any evidence in defence.
16. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP and Amicus Curiae Sh. Rambir Singh for the accused. My findings are as under :
17. From the statement of Constable Amar Singh and other PWs it stands proved on record that Constable Amar Singh is a police official and thus a public servant.
18. PW7/A DD No.10D clearly proves that Constable Amar Singh (complainant) and PW Narender were on patrolling duty on 26.06.05. PW7 has duly proved this DD, by which both of them were put on patrolling duty on 26.06.05 and this testimony of PW7 is uncontradicted testimony. The prosecution, therefore, has successfully proved that both Constable Narender and Constable Amar Singh were on patrolling duty on 26.06.05. This document corroborates the oral testimony of Constable Narender (PW3) and Constable Amar Singh (PW6). Constable Amar Singh has stated that he had received injuries after 3 p.m. when he was present near Central Bridge and Narender has corroborated this testimony of PW6 when he stated that he found Constable Amar Singh in injured condition near Central Bridge. Both these testimonies duly prove that Constable Amar Singh had received injuries while on official duty on 26.06.05 and found in injured condition at about 3.30 p.m.
19. The Record Clerk PW11 Pooran Mal has examined himself since Dr. Karan Yadav was not available as he had left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not available in the hospital. He has stated that MLC is in the handwriting of Dr. Karan Yadav PW11/A bearing the signature at point A.
20. PW9 Dr. Surya Vikram has also stated that he attended the patient namely Amar Singh on 26.06.05 being referred by CMO and he prepared the notes of injuries at the back of MLC which is Ex.PW9/A. Following injuries are shown on Ex.PW9/A.
1) A CLW 6cm*2cm*1cm over right arm 2cm above elbow left medially.
2) A CLW 5cm*3cm*2cm over right fore arm and tendon exposed.
3) A CLW 5cm*5cm*5cm over left side of neck.
He has also stated that after examining the MLC, he gave his opinion on 2.12.05 and according to his opinion, the nature of injuries were grievous. This witness has been duly cross-examined and in the cross-examination, he has stated that the patient had received injuries on his right fore arm which was grievous in nature and the nature of injuries was 5cms*3cms*2cms caused by sharp-edged weapon and the other two injuries were simple in nature. There is no cross- examination of the doctor on his opinion that injury shown on the right fore arm had not been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. This testimony of doctor duly proves that injuries were caused to Constable Amar Singh with sharp-edged weapon. The Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that it had been the case of the prosecution that Constable Amar Singh had received injuries by slip of his foot on falling down and it had been so recorded in DD 14 A. DD 14 A had been recorded at the information of Constable Narender. The question is whether DD 14 A correctly records the manner in which Constable Amar Singh had received the injuries. It is of prime importance that DD 14 A is not recorded on the statement of Constable Amar Singh and Constable Amar Singh has put allegations on SI Brijesh Malik, to whom the investigation of DD 14A Ex.PW1/A was assigned. Constable Amar Singh has clearly stated that SI Brijesh Malik had reached at the hospital with Constable Devender and forcibly obtained his signature on blank paper and thereafter, he was sent on medical rest from 26.06.05 to 7.09.05 and that no investigation had been done into the case and later the file has been consigned vide DD No.15A. Constable Amar Singh was also confronted in his cross-examination with his alleged statement recorded by SI Brijesh Malik which is marked 6A and the witness has clearly denied having made any such statement. He has clearly stated that he had never made the statement marked 6A. From the MLC of the injured, it is also clear that he had a deep cut of the size 5cms*3cms*2cms on his right fore arm and witness has also stated that he was not capable of writing and, therefore, it is obvious that the statement marked 6A is not written by Constable Amar Singh. His signature on mark 6A at point A also shows that with a great difficulty, he could put his signatures there. Witness has also clearly stated that his signatures were obtained on the blank paper. This statement of Constable Amar Singh cannot be doubted. SI Brijesh Malik was senior to him and was also enjoying position of trust and Constable Amar Singh certainly, till that time had no reason to doubt intentions of SI Brijesh Malik. It was only when Constable Amar Singh joined his duties after medical rest of about 2 ½ months, he came to know of the fate of his case and then he started complaining about it. The first statement of Constable Amar Singh to the doctor at the time of his medical examination on MLC PW1/A clearly proves his contentions that he had received injuries in an assault and not as recorded in DD 14 A. This further confirms the truthfulness of the statement of the injured, Constable Amar Singh that at no stage, he had stated to anyone that he had received injury by slip of foot and falling down while catching hold of a suspect. The stand of Constable Amar Singh that he received injuries in an assault on him, further gets corroborated by other evidences on record which is the opinion of doctors certifying that injuries have been caused by sharp-edged weapon. Initially the investigation into the injuries of Constable Amar Singh were not done and DD 15 A was recorded. It was recorded in this DD that injuries were caused to Constable Amar Singh when he was trying to apprehend a boy, and this DD stands falsified by the uncontradicted testimony of prosecution witnesses itself. The portion of DD 15 A that Constable Amar Singh was '' trying to apprehend a boy '' stands contradicted by HC Devender Singh (PW 4). HC Devender Singh has stated that he had gone to platform no. 6 to see some person in Lichvi Express train and he apprehended the accused Amarjit Yadav on the basis of suspicion and handed over the custody of Amarjit Yadav to Constable Amar Singh. This uncontradicted testimony of HC Devender Singh proves that Constable Amar Singh was not trying to arrrest any person but accused Amarjit Yadav was already in his custody when he had received injuries. This demolishes the initial story of the police that Constable Amar Singh had received injuries by slip of foot. The nature of injuries as defined by the doctor shows that the injuries had been caused by sharp-edged weapon and there is no opinion of the doctor that such injuries can be received by a mere slip of foot and falling down. On the basis of the above discussed evidences on record, I hold that injured, Constable Amar Singh had not received the injuries by falling down but the grievous injuries have been caused upon his person. These injuries are of grievous nature and doctor has opined that the same has been caused by sharp-edged weapon.
21. The next question which arises is as to who had caused these injuries on the person of Amar Singh. The uncontradicted testimony of PW4 HC Devender Singh proves that he had handed over the custody of accused, whom he had apprehended on the basis of suspicion to Constable Amar Singh and had directed Constable Amar Singh to take the accused to Police Station. PW6 Constable Amar Singh has clearly stated that when he was taking the accused to PS and reached at Central Bridge, the accused tried to release himself but he caught hold of him firmly and then the accused took out ustara and inflicted injuries upon his person. The accused was not known to him and it was only subsequently, he came to know that the person who had inflicted injuries on him had been arrested in another case vide DD No. 17B u/s 107/151 Cr.PC and so he filed a complaint. He also made complaints against his senior officers and also fought for justice and thereafter only the SHO, Ishwar Singh started the investigation into his complaint registering the FIR and assigned the same to SI Satish Rana who arrested the accused, collected the MLC and filed a challan. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW6 which can show that Constable Amar Singh has any motive or reason to falsely implicate the accused in this case. Moreover, no explanation has come from the accused as to when he was in the custody of Constable Amar Singh, the injured, how he managed to flee. PW4 by his uncontradicted testimony has proved that he gave custody of accused to Constable Amar Singh. So, accused was with Constable Amar Singh when he received injuries and no explanation has come from accused as to how Constable Amar Singh received injuries or how he managed to flee from custody of Constable Amar Singh. Since it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused was in custody of Constable Amar Singh when he had received injuries and since Constable Amar Singh has clearly stated that it was accused who had caused injuries upon his person and since accused has not been able to impute any motive or any reason on the part of Constable Amar Singh to falsely implicate him in this case, I hold that prosecution has successfully proved that it was the accused who has caused grievous injuries with ustara on the person of Constable Amar Singh while he was taking the accused to Police Station.
22. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt on Constable Amar Singh, a public servant, in order to escape from his custody and succeeded in escaping from his custody and thereby prevented Constable Amar Singh from discharging his duties as a public servant. I convict the accused for offences u/s 186 IPC, 353 IPC and 333 IPC.
23. In this case, Constable Amar Singh has also moved an application u/s 319 Cr.PC for the dereliction of duty by Police officials who did not do the investigation into the incident properly and rushed into closing the case without even obtaining the opinion of doctor on the MLC and without verifying whether DD 14 A has been correctly recorded or not. It was the duty of SI Brijesh Malik to verify whether injuries on the person of Constable Amar Singh were possible by slip of foot or not and without doing proper investigation into the case, he closed the case. I have been informed that the Departmental enquiries have already been ordered in this matter. Moreover, the joint trial of Police officials Inspector Ishwar Singh, SI Brijesh Malik and HC Devender canot be held with accused Amarjeet Yadav in view of Section 223 Cr.PC, which specifies the persons and categories of persons, can be tried jointly. The application u/s 319 Cr.PC stands disposed off with this observation. Announced in Open Court on this 18th day of September,2007 (DEEPA SHARMA) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : DELHI IN THE COURT OF MS.DEEPA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : DELHI SC No. 13/06 FIR No. 526/05 PS NDLS U/s 186/353/333 IPC State Versus Amarjit Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Lalbehari Yadav R/o Village Laxmi Nagar Notanwa, P.S. Jara, Distt. Maharanganj (U.P.) & Jhuggi No. 515 Laxmi Nagar Pushta, Hathiwala, Delhi.
ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE
1. I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. It is submitted on behalf of the convict that he is a poor person and is not involved in any of the cases. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken. It is submitted on behalf of Ld. APP that the convict does not deserve any leniency as he had caused injuries to a Police Constable.
2. I have perused the file. The convict has caused grievous injuries on the person of the Constable when he was taking him to the Police Station.
3. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentence the convict for Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of 3 months for the offences u/s 186 IPC, for RI for a period of 4 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, IDSI for 1 year for the offences u/s 333 IPC and RI for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, IDSI for 1 year for the offences u/s 353 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC shall also be awarded to the convict. Announced in Open Court on this 25th day of September,2007 (DEEPA SHARMA) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : DELHI