S K JANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated the 12th December, 1969, whereby he confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under sections 379/511, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the trial court in terms of its judgment dated the 8th of July, ,1968. The trial court had sentenced the petitioner to one year's rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offence covered by section 379 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. For his convictions under sections 353 and 506 the trial court sentenced him separately to six months' rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of those convictions. The Additional Sessions Judge on a thorough appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution case stood proved and the guilt had been brought home to the accused. He declined to interfere with the sentences imposed in respect of the various offences.

(2.) Mr. R. L. Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, with his incisive ability has taken me through all parts of the case, i.e. the evidence recorded as well as the documents referred to therein. At my request the learned counsel has read the statement of Public Witness 1 twice over.

(3.) The case of the prosecution was that on the 15th of March, 1967, at about 10.40 p.m. while Public Witness 1 Nand Kumar was functioning as Head Constable Moharrir at Police Station Kalka Ji, the present petitioner went there. Public Witness I was in the course of recording a report regarding the alleged theft of a purse. Public Witness s. 2 and 3, who are members of the public, were the persons present with him and it was P.W. 3 Inder Jit at whose instance the report was being recorded. The accused is stated to have enquired from Public Witness I as to where the Station House Officer was. On being told that the said officer was taking rest and on being asked as to for what purpose the accused had come the accused allegedly stated that he had come to take away car No. PNL 11, which was standing in the police station. Public Witness 1 deposed at the trial that on being informed that the accused had come to take away the car he asked him as to whether he was armed with any Magisterial order directing that the. car should be made over to him or permitting him to take away the car. The accused is stated to have replied that he did not possess any order passed by any Magistrate but asserted that he will take away the car. It was further deposed that the accused reached the car and Public Witness 1 considering that the said vehicle was concerned in an excise case and did not deserve to be interfered with went up to the car and told the petitioner not to touch it. The deposition of Public Witness 1 then proceeds that Mr. Jain, petitioner, did not agree and tried to open one of the doors of the car. On that Public Witness 1 caught the accused by one of his hands and tried to remove the petitioner from that place so that he should not try to remove the car. On that the petitioner is alleged to have pushed Public Witness 1 down to earth and when he again stood up the accused started abusing him. Then according to P.W. 1 a scuffle started, in the course of which, as depose to in the examination of Public Witness 1, the accused threateningly said that he would take the car and he would see as to how Public Witness 1 will deter him from taking it away. The words further used by the accused were to the effect that Public Witness 1 should get away otherwise the result would be bad. During the scuffle, Public Witness 1 alleged, his uniform was torn. It was alleged in his examination-in-chief that the persons who had come to lodge the report rushed to his rescue out of the office room and intervened in order to end the scuffle. It was after that that Balu Ram A.S.I, was alleged to have come on the scene. It was he who recorded the statement of Public Witness 1 and took the torn uniform into possession vide memo Exhibit P.A.