Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1962/2016
VIKRANT @ VICKY Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC and Mr.Peeyush Bhatia & Ms. Parul Mahajan, Advocates along with
Inspector Satyawan, Crime Branch, for the State.
VIKRANT @ VICKY Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal along with Inspector Satyawan, Crime Branch, for the State.
10.08.2016
ORDER
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek quashing of the proceedings in case FIR No.197/2016 registered under Sections 307/ 302 IPC at Police Station - South Rohini, Delhi dated 17.04.2016against him, on the complaint of Shyam Sunder, S/o Sh. Ram Sumeeran/respondent no.2. The petitioner claims false implication in the said case by the police in collusion with local residents of the area wherein the petitioner resides, who are inimical towards him. The 2016:DHC:8225 petitioner heavily relies on the subsequent stand taken by respondent no.2/ the complainant, to the effect that he did not name the petitioner as the culprit in his complaint, and that his signatures were taken by the police on blank sheets, which were later filled up - falsely accusing the petitioner herein of having committed the crime. The petitioner has also preferred the aforesaid bail application to seek anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in the above case.
2. The case involves the death of one of the daughters of the complainant, namelyAnjali. She alongwith her two other sisters and her mother (according to the original complaint/ tehrir attributed to the complainant, even the father/ complainant was present) were watching a marriage procession from their balcony. According to the original complaint, crackers were being burst and the petitioner was also brandishing a pistol like object and he was firing bullets from it. Anjali collapsed after she was hit with something in the head. She became unconscious. She was taken to the hospital and succumbed to her injuries after about 3 days. Initially, a case under section 307 IPC was made out against the petitioner. Subsequently, section 302 IPC was also added once the victim died.
3. The complainant/ father of the victim later sought to claimthat his signatures were taken ona blank sheet by thepolice, wherein thename of the petitioner was introduced as the one, who had fired the bullet while participating in the marriage procession. The complainant/ father of the victim claimed that he was informed ofthe injury suffered to his daughter while he was still at his shop close to his residence, and he rushed to his home and took his daughter for treatment.
4. The complainant/ father of the victim preferred a writ petition, being W.P. (CrI.) No.1620/2016 in this Court for transfer ofinvestigation ofthe case, on the ground that the police had fabricated a case against the petitioner herein, namely, Vicky, and the real culprit had been let off. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.07.2016, and the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police. While disposing ofthe petition, the Court observed that the complainant, being the father of the deceased, would not like to let off the real offender. Thus, a doubt was raised with regard to the implication ofthe petitioner in the case.
5. On the aforesaid premise, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to seek quashing of the proceedings against him.
6. The State has filed a detailed status report in the bail application, and Mr. Katyal has relied upon thesame to oppose this petition aswell.
7. According to the status report, upon receipt of information, SI Pawan Kumar reached the hospital where the injured had been taken. There, the complainant met him and got recorded his statement, inter alia, that he was residing in House No.31, Second Floor, Village - Mangolpur Kalan and running a tea stall in Mangolpur Pathhar Market. On 16.04.2016, he came to his house at about 7 p.m. In his neighbourhood, therewas marriage of one Aman. He along withhis wife and three daughters were watching the marriage procession from the balcony of his house. His neighbour Vikrant @ Vicky was dancing with a pistol like weapon in his hand. At about 7:30 p.m., when the marriage procession reached near his house, the said Vikrant @ Vicky was firing from a pistol like weapon, while some other persons were burning crackers. Suddenly something hiton the head ofhis daughter Anjali, due to which blood started oozing out from her head. Consequently, they took her to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, where after giving first aid, he was advised to take her to some other hospital. The victim was then shifted to Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar, where the complainant was informed that Anjali has received a bullet injury. The complainant also stated in his statement that bullet was fired by Vikrant @ Vicky and sought legal action against Vikrant @ Vicky. On the basis of said statement, FIR in question cameto be registeredunder Section 307 IPG.
8. During investigation, statement of witnesses, including independent witnesses have been recorded and evidence collected. Anjali succumbed to her injuries in the hospital and, consequently, the case was converted into Section 302 IPG. Asperthepost-mortem report, the cause of death has been disclosed as ''^Death is due to craniocerebral damage secondary to gunshot injury to head\
9. The status report states that efforts to make the petitioner Vikrant @ Vicky participate in the investigation failed. He did not join the investigation.
10. He has already moved two earlier anticipatory bail applications before the Trial Gourt, as well as before this Gourt, without any success. The first bail application was dismissed on 04.05.2016 by Sh.P.K. Jain, Spl. Judge, Rohini Delhi; the second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.05.2016 beforethis Gourt; the third bail application was dismissed on 31.05.2016 by Ms. NiveditaAnil Sharma, Spl. Judge, ASJ, Rohini Gourts, Delhi; and the fourth application was dismissed by this Court on 13.06.2016. The petitioner has now preferred the fifth application before this Court, which is also listed along with the present petition, as Bail Appln.1454/2016.
11. The status report discloses the investigation undertaken by the Crime Branch after the transfer of the case to the Crime Branch vide order dated 14.07.2016.
12. Mr. Katyal submits that in his statement/ tehrir, the complainant Shyam Sunder had stated that he knew Vikrant @ Vicky - thepetitioner, who is his neighbour residing in House No.131, Village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi.
13. The status report further discloses that one independent witnesswhose identity has been kept secret, has stated that Vikrant @Vicky was present inthemarriage procession on 16.04.2016 and hewas dancing and firing in the procession. This witness has established the identity of Vikrant @Vicky after pointing to a photo clip inthe CD prepared bythe earlier I.O. SI Pawan Kumar on 17.04.2016. The earlier I.O. Inspector Dinesh Kumar has also recorded the statement of one lady Smt. Lila Choudhary, who has stated that the complainant Shyam Sunder and his family were well known to Vikrant @ Vicky and his family. The submission is that, not only from the tehrir/ complaint but also from the statement of Smt. Lila Choudhary, it is evident thatthe complainant and thepetitioner are well-known to each other and each other's family. The complainant, however, subsequently - while filing his writ petition aforesaid, soughtto claimthat he did not knowthe petitionerat all.
14. The status report further discloses that during investigation by the Crime Branch, statements of SI Pawan Kumar and Inspector Dinesh Kumar - the previous I.O.s of the case, have been recorded, who have stated that the statement of complainant was recorded at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Paschim Vihar, and the same was recorded as per the dictation and in the presence of other relatives of Shyam Sunder - the complainant.
15. Mr. Katyal has also shown to the Court the original statement of Shyam Sunder recorded on 16.04.2016. Mr. Katyal submits that on a perusal thereof it cannot be said that signatures of the complainant were taken on blank papers. The location ofthe signatures ofthe complainant defies such an argument. The signatures are located just below the statement of Shyam Sunder, which is ontheupper halfofthepage.
16. The status report also discloses that a copy of the FIR was also handed over to one Sarvan Kumar - a relative of the complainant, by MHC(R), PS-South Rohini on 17.04.2016. Even after receiving the copy of the FIR as early as on 17.04.2016, the complainant did not seek to disown his statement implicating the petitioner. Mr. Katyal submits that thepolice received the first statement of the complainant - disowning his earlier signed complaint on 03.05.2016, which was apparently posted on 26.04.2016, i.e. after about 9 days of the copy of the FIR being given to the relative ofthe complainant, Sarvan Kumar.
17. The status report further points out that the complainant, even in his complaint dated 03.05.2016, had mentioned that his family members can identify the person who fired the gun shot on 16.04.2016. However, when the complainant's daughter Akansha was examined in the presence of her parents, she stated that she would not be able to identify the boy whohad firedthe gun shot, if brought beforeher.
18. As per the status report, the subsequent statement of the complainant itself is found to be doubtful. The complainant denied during his examination that he was known to Vikrant @ Vicky, which is contrary to the statement of Lila Choudhary, as aforesaid. The complainant also failed to disclose the identity of the boy, who allegedly came to his shop to inform about the incident (according to the signed complaint attributed to the complainant, he was already at his residence when the incident took place). The complainant also did not disclose the identity of the two ladies, whowere allegedly found standing besides his daughter when he allegedly reached his house on 16.04.2016. (He has claimed so in his subsequent versions). He has also not disclosed the identity of the Bengali Doctor to whom he rushed after the incident (as claimed by him subsequently). Accusation of the complainant that his signatures were taken at the bottom of papers is contradicted by the signatures on the tehrir/ statement, which is found in the upper half of the paper and is not on the bottomat all. The status report points out that the petitioner has failed to surrender and he is evading arrest even after process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been executed and report submitted to the Court. Attachment proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the accused/ petitioner.
19. Mr. Katyal submits that the complainant had, in fact, given a complaint on 02.05.2016 that he and his family members were receiving threats from the family of Aman, during whose marriage procession the incident in question took place. Mr. Katyal submits that Vikrant @ Vicky is, in fact, a relative of Aman. Mr. Katyal submits that in these circumstances, the possibility of the complainant being pressurised, coerced and threatened to withdraw his complaint and change hisversion qua the petitioner, cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances it is argued that the stand taken by the complainant subsequently cannot form the basis ofquashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
20. It is also pointed out that the mobile phone call records of the petitioner also have a storyto tell. Thepetitioner switched off his mobile ^ phone some time after the incident on 16.04.2016. The last call recorded from his mobile phone was on 16.04.2016 at 20:17:54 hours, i.e. 08:17 p.m. It is pointed out that the complainant had made a statement/ tehrir only on 16.04.2016 at 11:55 p.m. Till then, there was no question of the petitioner having an inkling that he would, allegedly, be falsely implicated. Thus, the petitioner had no reason to switch off his mobile phone at 08:17 p.m. as, at that point of time, there would have been no reason for him to suspecthis allegedfalse implication in the case. Yet, he did so. Mr. Katyal points out that the petitioner has not switched on the mobile phone ever since then.
21. Mr. Katyal has also submitted that there are other serious involvements reported against the petitioner which are case FIR No.58/2015 registered at Police Station - Mangolpur under Sections 307/ 365/ 394/ 397/ 412/ 120-B/ 34 IPC and Sections 25/ 27/ 54 Arms Act; and FIR No.l 118/2015 registered at Police Station - Alipur under Sections 392/ 397 IPC.
22. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record and the status report, it appears to me that the possibility of the complainant changing his version - with a view to protect the petitioner, cannot be ruled out. l/« The State has pointed out several factors, which suggest that itcould well be a case ofthe complainant changing his version falsely subsequently. The petitioner has earlier involvements, including under the Arms Act, and he is aneighbour ofthe complainant. The complainant's subsequent stand that his signatures were taken at the bottom on blank pages, is not supported by the fact that his signatures on the tehrir are on the upper half of the page wherein it is recorded. Therein the petitioner has been named. The conduct ofthe petitioner in switching offmobile phone soon after the incident, even though at thatpoint of time there was no reason for him to suspect false implication, also raises suspicion. Even though the complainant claimed that his family could identity the person who fired the shot, his daughterAkansha stated that she would not be able to identify the person who fired the shot from within the marriage procession. The complainant does not seem to corroborate his subsequent version by disclosing the names ofthe person who allegedly informed him of the incident at his shop; the ladies he met when he allegedly reachedhome, and; the Bengalidoctorto whom he first took his daughter.
23. As noticed above, there is an independent eye witness to the incident, whose identity has been withheld for the time being so as to prevent the witness being influenced. Apart from that, there is another witness to establish the fact that the petitioner and the complainant are well-known to each other - a fact which is denied by the complainant subsequently.
24. In view of the aforesaid, I amnot inclined to quashthe proceedings against the petitioner at this stage. So far as the petitioner's application v" for grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, for the reasons taken note of hereinabove, I find no merit therein. Four earlier attempts of the petitionerhave failed. In fact, proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. are underway. The weapon of the offence is to be recovered. The possibility of the petitioner already influencing the complainant cannot be ruled out.
25. In these circumstances, both the writ petition as well as the bail application are dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J AUGUST 10, 2016 B.S. Rohella