IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI [CASE NUMBER] FIR No. 2/06 P.S. Jahangir Puri U/[SECTION] [ACT] & 25/54/59 [ACT] [ENTITY] Versus 1. [ENTITY] S/o Rajender R/o House no. H1/308, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. 2. [ENTITY] S/o Kishan R/o House no. G563, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. 3. [ENTITY] S/o Mohd. Saleem R/o House no. C634, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. 4. [ENTITY] S/o Faqir Chand R/o Jhuggie No. B392, Kblock, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. 5. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Umrao Singh R/o House no. B291, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 1/10 Date of Receipt : 24.02.2006 Date of Conclusion of arguments : 19.07.2010 Date of Decision : 21.07.2010 JUDGMENT :
1. The accused persons [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have been chargesheeted by Police Station Jahangir Puri for commission of offence under [SECTION] [ACT].
2. Story of prosecution in brief is that 31/12/05, [ENTITY] along with [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were patrolling in the area of Mangal Bazar, Jahangir Puri, vide [CASE NUMBER] At about 11 PM, they all reached at Mangal Bazar Chowk while patrolling in the area. There, a secret informer met [ENTITY] and informed him that five boys armed with weapons were sitting at dilapidated toilet near A block School, Jahangir Puri and they were planning to commit crime, if raided, they all could be apprehended. On this information, [ENTITY] organized a raiding party consisting of above said police officials and he requested a rickshaw puller to join the raiding party, but he refused and left giving excuses. [ENTITY] briefed other members of the raiding party about the secret information and instructed [ENTITY] to go to the spot and listen their conversation. He was instructed to give a signal of keeping the light on of his mobile phone. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] reached at the informed place FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 2/10 and heard the conversation as those boys were planning to commit dacoity in the house of one [ENTITY], [ENTITY] switched on light of his mobile phone and gave the signal to the police party. On receiving the signal, all the members of the raiding party raided the spot and overpowered all the five boys sitting there. [ENTITY] apprehended accused [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] apprehended accused [ENTITY], [ENTITY] apprehended accused [ENTITY], [ENTITY] apprehended accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] [ENTITY] apprehended accused [ENTITY]. Their formal search was conducted and in formal search of accused [ENTITY], one iron rod was recovered. In formal search of accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], button actuated knives were recovered. In formal search of accused [ENTITY], one [ENTITY] was recovered. In formal search of accused [ENTITY], chilly powder in a polythene was recovered. The case property was sealed and seized. [ENTITY] got the FIR registered. After registration of the FIR, further investigation was handed over to SI [ENTITY], who along with [ENTITY] reached the spot. All the accused were arrested and their personal search was conducted. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against all accused was filed in the Court. The copies were supplied.
3. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after complying the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT], committed the case to the court of Sessions as the offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT] is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 3/10
4. All the accused were charged for the offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT]. Accused [ENTITY], [ENTITY] were also charged for the offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT]. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined eight witnesses and thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
6. [ENTITY]ment of accused persons were recorded u/[SECTION] [ACT], wherein they denied the entire evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case after lifting from their houses/market. They further stated that they are innocent. Nothing has been recovered from their possession. The accused persons did not lead evidence in their defence. Thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard arguments from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the [ENTITY], learned Defence counsel for the accused person and perused the record.
8. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that in the present case there were six recovery witnesses that is PW1 [ENTITY] [ENTITY], PW2 [ENTITY] FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 4/10 [ENTITY], PW3 [ENTITY] [ENTITY], PW6 [ENTITY], PW7 [ENTITY] and PW8 [ENTITY]. They all have supported the prosecution case. It has been proved on record that on 31/12/05, PW7 [ENTITY] along with PW6 [ENTITY], PW1 [ENTITY], PW8 [ENTITY] [ENTITY], PW3 [ENTITY], [ENTITY] [ENTITY] and PW2 [ENTITY] were patrolling in the area of Mangal Bazar, Jahangir Puri, vide DD no. 37A, proved as Ex.PW7/A and at about 11 PM, they all reached at Mangal Bazar Chowk while patrolling in the area. There, one secret informer met PW7 [ENTITY] and informed him that five boys armed with weapons were sitting at dilapidated toilet near A block School, Jahangir Puri and they were planning to commit crime, if raided, they all could be apprehended. On this information, PW7 [ENTITY] organized a raiding party consisting of above said police officials and he requested a rickshaw puller to join the raiding party, but he refused and left giving excuses. PW7 [ENTITY] briefed other members of the raiding party about the secret information and instructed PW1 [ENTITY] to go to the spot and to listen their conversation. He was instructed to give a signal by keeping the light on of his mobile phone. PW1 [ENTITY] [ENTITY] reached at the informed place and heard the conversation. As all the five boys were planning to commit dacoity in the house of one [ENTITY], PW1 [ENTITY] gave the pre decided signal by switching on the light of mobile phone. On this, all the members of the raiding party raided the spot and overpowered all the five persons. PW6 [ENTITY] apprehended accused FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 5/10 [ENTITY]. PW3 [ENTITY] apprehended accused [ENTITY], PW2 [ENTITY] apprehended accused [ENTITY], PW1 [ENTITY] apprehended accused [ENTITY] and PW8 [ENTITY] [ENTITY] apprehended accused [ENTITY]. Thereafter, formal search of the accused persons were conducted. In formal search of accused [ENTITY], one iron rod was recovered, in formal search of accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], button actuated knives were recovered, in formal search of [ENTITY] one [ENTITY] was recovered and in formal search of accused [ENTITY], chilly powder in a polythene was recovered. PW7 [ENTITY] prepared the sketch of both the button actuated knives and one [ENTITY]. The sketch of button actuated knife recovered from [ENTITY] is proved Ex. PW2/A. Sketch of [ENTITY] recovered from accused [ENTITY] is Ex. PW1/A. The knife which was recovered from accused [ENTITY] was 24 cm long having a blade of 11 cm and sketch of said knife is Ex.PW3/A. PW7 [ENTITY] kept all the three knives in separate cloth pieces and they were reduced into three separate pulindas and were sealed with the seal of RS and were seized vide seizure memo proved as Ex. PW2/B, PW1/B and PW3/B. The iron rod and the polythene containing chilly powder were kept in separate cloth pieces and were reduced into pullandas and were sealed by PW7 with the seal of RS and were taken into police possession vide seizure memos proved as Ex. 6/A and Ex. PW7/B. Thereafter, PW7 [ENTITY] prepared rukka proved Ex. PW7/C and handed over the same to PW 1 [ENTITY] for getting the case registered. PW1 [ENTITY] reached FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 6/10 the PS and got the FIR proved as Ex. PW5/A recorded and after registration of the FIR, PW1 [ENTITY] and PW4 SI [ENTITY] returned to the spot. PW7 [ENTITY] handed over the custody of the accused persons, documents and the case property to the PW4 SI [ENTITY]. PW4 SI [ENTITY] inspected the site and prepared site plan proved as Ex. PW4/A at the instance of PW7 [ENTITY] and thereafter PW7 left the spot. PW4 SI [ENTITY] arrested all the accused persons vide arrest memos proved as Ex. PW2/C, Ex. PW 4/B, Ex. PW4/C, Ex. PW4/D and Ex. PW4/E and their personal search was conducted vide memo proved Ex. PW4/G, Ex. PW2/D, Ex. PW4/F, Ex. PW4/H and Ex. PW4/J. Thereafter, all the police party along with accused persons returned to the police station and PW4 SI [ENTITY] deposited the case property in the Mal khana.
9. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that all the recovery witnesses have stood through the test of crossexamination, no material has come on record, which could help the accused persons in any way. Although there are some contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, but these contradictions are minor in nature and are bound to occur as the case was four years old. It is prayed that as prosecution has fully discharged its onus, accused be held guilty and convicted.
10. Learned defence counsel submitted that the story of the prosecution shows that accused persons were apprehended after receiving the FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 7/10 secret information. The secret information was received in the market i.e. Mangal Bazar many shopkeepers and public persons were there but no efforts whatsoever have been made. The place from where the accused persons were apprehended was only 1520 feet away from Mangal Bazar where they received secret information despite that no public person has been joined in the investigation. This itself create doubt about the truthfulness of the story of the prosecution.
11. Ld. Counsel further submitted that all the six recovery witnesses have contradicted each other. PW2 stated that [ENTITY] reduced the secret information into writing but [ENTITY] does not say so and on the record also there is no such document that secret information was reduced into writing by [ENTITY]. PW6, PW7 and PW8 stated that [ENTITY] was deputed by [ENTITY] to over hear their conversations. [ENTITY] went there and after some time he returned and told the IO that they are planning to commit dacoity where as PW1 has not supported this story he stated that he was directed by PW7 to go near them to over hear their conversations and signal by switching on the light of his mobile phone which he did. This itself shows that story that [ENTITY] was sent there who over heard their conversations and found that they are planning to commit dacoity is not true. PW2 , PW3 as well as PW8 stated that accused [ENTITY] was having the iron rod in his hand where as according to PW6 accused [ENTITY] was having an iron rod which he concealed in his aant. Ld. Counsel submitted that FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 8/10 keeping in view all these contradictions and the fact that no public witness was joined clearly shows that no such incident has taken place it is prayed that accused persons be acquitted.
12. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that in every case U/[SECTION] [ACT] it is found that constable who was sent to over hear the conversations always reaches there when the accused persons start planning to commit dacoity. This case is also not an exception. Admittedly the secret information was received when the police party was present in the area of Mangal Bazar. There were many persons in the Bazar but no public person has been joined. No shopkeepers or the resident of the locality were asked to join the raiding party. Only the rickshaw pullers were asked that also under the circumstances when the spot was only at a distance of 15/20 steps from the Mangal Bazar chowk. This itself creates doubt about the truthfulness of the story of the prosecution. As pointed out there are police witnesses only but they have also contradicted each other. PW1 stated that he was directed to over hear the conversations he went there over heard the conversations and signaled by switching on the light of his mobile phone thereafter the police party apprehended the accused persons. PW2 has also deposed on the same lines but the other witnesses including [ENTITY] gives the different story they deposed that PW7 deputed PW1 to over hear their conversation. PW1 went there thereafter he returned and told them about the FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 9/10 conversations. [ENTITY] again sent him and asked him to give signal by lighting the mobile phone and this time [ENTITY] gave the signal which is quite contrary to the prosecution story as well as statements of PW1 and PW2. PW6 has stated that accused [ENTITY] was found in possession of iron rod which he concealed in his aant whereas all other witnesses stated that he was holding iron rod in his right hand. Keeping in view all these contradictions and the fact that no public witness was joined though the witnesses were readily available but no sincere efforts were made I acquit all the accused persons giving them benefit of doubt. Accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] be released from J/C if not required in any other case. Bail Bond of accused [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are callced. Sureties are discharged. Documents if any on record be returned to the accused/surety. Case property be destroyed after the period for filing the appeal is over or no appeal is preferred. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on today i.e. 21.07.2010 ([ENTITY]) ADDL. SESSION JUDGE ROHINI : DELHI FIR no. 2/06 : [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] etc. Page 10/10