STATE Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 4th March, 1985 at about 11.00 A.M., both the Respondents along with 18-20 associates went to the office of the DCP, Traffic at Police Headquarter, IP Estate. When they reached the office, the orderly of the DCP, Traffic, Constable Kishore Lal stopped them and both the Respondents along with their associates forcefully entered the office. They shouted slogans Delhi Police Murdabad , manhandled and pushed the orderly Constable Kishore Lal. Inside the office, heated exchange of words took place and chairs were thrown here and there. The DCP, Traffic Sh. A.S. Khan was also gheraoed. Many police officials reached there and rescued the DCP, Traffic. PW9, Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the DCP traffic on 30th April, 1985 accorded the sanction for prosecution under Section 195 Cr.P.C. On the same day FIR was registered on the complaint of HC Kishore Lal, PW 6 and after investigation the police filed charge sheet against both the Respondents. The Respondents were charged for offences punishable under Sections 186/353/332/451/341 IPC. The prosecution in support of their case examined 10 witnesses of whom material witnesses are PW2, the then ACP Kewal Singh, PW3 the then DCP, Traffic AS Khan, PW5 the then Sub-Inspector Ahsan Ullah Siddiqui working as PA to PW3, PW6 HC Kishore Lal orderly of PW3 and the Complainant of the case and PW7 the then Traffic Inspector, Head Quarter. The Respondents denied the incriminating circumstances put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that they had gone to the office of the DCP, Traffic with prior appointment and by chance some other persons who were owners of Connaught Place Market wanted to have a talk with the DCP, Traffic in connection with some problem and it was then they had some heated arguments with the DCP. Within minutes the local police reached there and as a result of the misunderstanding and mistaken identity, the Respondents were apprehended by the police. The Respondents also examined defence witnesses who stated that only the Respondents had gone to meet the DCP Traffic at the PHQ on the said day and all others remained standing outside the office and suddenly 15-20 police officers came and they could not understand what had happened and why the police had come. The learned Trial Court acquitted the Respondents of the charges framed against them primarily on the ground that though the incident had taken place at the police headquarter and everybody claimed that 15-20 persons had gathered however, strangely only two persons could be apprehended and nobody else could be apprehended by the police. Moreover, the testimony of the two main witnesses PW2 DCP Kewal Singh and PW3 DIG A.S. Khan does not make out any offence against the Respondents. PW2 has not supported the prosecution version and has stated that there was no gherao of the DCP. Challenging the impugned judgment dated 10th May, 1996 the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Learned APP for the State contends that the learned Trial Court primarily acquitted the Respondents on the ground that the most baffling point in the prosecution case is that how the associates of the accused persons managed to escape from the 9th Floor of the police headquarter despite their involvement being at par with these two accused persons. As per the statement of the witnesses, 60-70 police officials were there on the 9th floor of the Police Headquarter and all the prosecution witnesses have given unsatisfactory and contradictory versions rendering the whole prosecution case into an arena of doubt. It is contended that merely because the other co-accused persons could not be apprehended and the Respondents were the one s who were identified and apprehended, the Respondents cannot be acquitted of the charges against them. It is stated that PW2 DCP Kewal Singh, PW3 Shri A.S.Khan and PW6 HC Kishore Lal, the Complainant are the eye witnesses who have deposed about the sequence of events and all have clearly implicated the Respondents. Hence the impugned judgment be set aside by this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand contends that the allegations against the Respondents are that on 4th March 1985, at 11.15 A.M. they went to the 9th floor of Police Headquarter along with 18-20 persons manhandled the orderly to DCP, Traffic, entered his office forcefully and gheraoed the DCP, Traffic. However, the fact is that the Respondents had taken prior appointment from the DCP, Traffic and thus, there was no question of forcefully entering the office and gheraoing the DCP. PW3 who is the main witness, who was allegedly gheraoed and in whose office forceful entry was made, on being recalled for further examination after Respondent 2 was arrested improved on his earlier version on leading questions put to him by the learned APP. There is discrepancy in the testimony of witnesses as some of them have deposed that the incident took place on the 8th floor while the others deposed that the incident took place on the 9th floor. PW2 also did not support the prosecution case as he has stated that when he heard the noise, he went inside and saw people were sitting and there were heated arguments. The chairs were not lying scattered. Thus there was neither any restrain nor any act to constitute the offence of criminal trespass on part of the Respondents.