(Oral):
CRM-2987-2018
The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 82 days in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 82 days in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby condoned.
CRM-A-238-MA-2018
The instant application has been filed for grant of leave against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.07.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala.
For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed.
Main case:
1. Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.07.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the seven respondents-accused, who had faced the trial, stands acquitted of the charges framed against them in case bearing No.06 of 2016 arising out of FIR No.74 dated 14.03.2016 registered under Sections 332/353/186/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 152 of the Railway Act, at Police Station GRP Ambala Cantt.
2. Briefly stated, the present case arises out of a complaint submitted by Sukhdev Raj, IPF, RPF Post, Ambala Cantt. It is averred therein that on 13.03.2016, at about 19:45 hours, an information was received at the Control Room of RPF Post, Ambala Cantt, to the effect that certain unidentified persons were pelting stones at Train No. 12012, Shatabdi Express, particularly targeting Coach No. C-11 (Seats No. 35, 36, 37) and Coach No. C-2 (Seats No. 53, 54, 58, and 59), between Dhulkot and Ambala Cantt Railway Station. The said information was conveyed by Head Constable Rajinder Singh of the RPF, upon which Sub-Inspector Ranjit Singh and Sub-Inspector Bhagirath Nehra, along with other officials, proceeded to the spot. Upon reaching the location, the police party observed that 2–3 persons were engaged in pelting stones at the train. On noticing the presence of the police, the said persons attempted to flee; however, one individual became entangled on the railway track, fell down whereupon he was apprehended. Upon interrogation, the apprehended individual disclosed his name as Goldy and further revealed the names of his associates, who had fled from the spot, as Vishnu and Nanu. He is stated to have admitted that all three of them had consumed liquor near the railway track and, for amusement, had indulged in pelting stones at the passing train. It is further alleged that, shortly thereafter, a group comprising approximately 10–12 males and 4–5 females arrived at the spot with an intent to secure the release of the apprehended accused. During the course of such intervention, they created a ruckus and caused injuries to Sub-Inspector Ranjit Singh and Sub-Inspector Bhagirath Nehra. In the course of the ensuing proceedings, one more individual, namely Ajay, was apprehended at the spot.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint and proceedings, the present case came to be registered, whereupon investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, the remaining accused persons were apprehended and their disclosure statements were recorded. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against the accused Gautam @ Goldy, Ajay @ Jugnu and Vishnu.
4. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed by the Court of Shri Nitin Raj, Special Railway Magistrate, Ambala Cantt, vide Order dated 01.06.2016.
5. During the pendency of the trial, a supplementary challan was also filed against additional accused, namely Subhash Kumar, Geeta Ram, Rulda Ram and Akshay @ Nanu, which was received on assignment and upon committal of the case vide order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Court of Shri Nitin Raj, learned Special Railway Magistrate, Ambala Cantt.
6. Upon consideration of the material on record and finding that a prima facie case was made out, all the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 152 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Sections 148, 186, 332, and 353 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide order dated 15.12.2016, to which all accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following fifteen witnesses:
| PW-1 | Inspector Sukhdev Raj |
| PW-2 | SI Ranjit Singh, RPF |
| PW-3 | SI Bhagirath Nehra |
| PW-4 | EASI Ram Niwas |
| PW-5 | EASI Sanjay Pal |
| PW-6 | SI Ajivan Kumar |
| PW-7 | SI Padam Singh (retired) |
| PW-8 | Ashok Kumar, SSE |
| PW-9 | SI Pawan Kumar |
| PW-10 | HC Rajinder Singh |
| PW-11 | SI Ram Bachan |
| PW-12 | Bhupinder Kumar, DCTI |
| PW-13 | Sunny Bihan, DCTI |
| PW-14 | Dr. Sumit Kukreja |
| PW-15 | ASI Ranbir Singh |
9. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them and pleaded false implication. They opted to lead defence evidence, but no evidence was led in their defence.
10. Parties led their respective arguments and upon consideration thereof, the Additional Sessions Judge, recorded his conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to establish its case against the respondent(s)- accused and they were thus acquitted of the charges framed against them.
11. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been filed.
12. Learned State counsel submits that the Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated the testimony of PW-1/Inspector Sukhdev Raj in its correct perspective and that the deposition of PW-1, if read in its entirety, clearly establishes the involvement of the respondent–accused in the act of pelting stones at the train and their subsequent conduct upon the arrival of the police party, wherein they attempted to flee from the spot. It is further submitted that one of the accused, namely Goldy, was apprehended at the spot after he became entangled on the railway track and fell down, thereby conclusively establishing his presence and participation in the occurrence. Learned State counsel contends that the evidence on record also sufficiently demonstrates that the said accused was under the influence of liquor at the relevant time. It is also argued that the prosecution has also successfully established that a group of persons from the vicinity arrived at the spot with the intent to secure the release of the apprehended accused and, in the process, created a disturbance and manhandled the police officials, thereby obstructing them in the discharge of their official duties.
13. Learned State counsel further submits that the respondents- accused not only caused damage to the railway property but also obstructed the Police officials from performing their official duties. It is argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in discarding the testimonies of other material prosecution witnesses without assigning cogent reasons. The same has led to an erroneous conclusion and the resultant acquittal of the respondents- accused persons.
14. I have heard the learned State counsel and have also gone through the judgment under challenge.
15. It is evident from a perusal of the record and consideration of the arguments that the respondent–accused had been alleged to have pelted stones at the passing Shatabdi Express, particularly targeting Coach Nos. C-2 and C- 11, thereby causing damage to the window panes of the said coaches while the train was in transit between Dhulkot and Ambala Cantt Railway Station.
16. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala went through the deposition and testimonies of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution.
17. In so far as the aspect of damage having been caused to the coaches of Shatabdi Express is concerned, it is specifically recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, that there was no report on record on the basis whereof it could be assumed that the cracks in the window panes of Coach Nos. C-2 and C-11 were, in fact, the result of stone pelting and further no complaint had been received from any passenger travelling in the said coaches regarding any such incident of stone pelting or damage to the window panes during the journey between Dhulkot and Ambala Cantt. Railway Station. The trial Court also took into consideration the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including the Senior Section Officer, the Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector and the Investigating Officer and found that their evidence did not satisfactorily establish the prosecution case on this aspect. Further, on the issue as to whether the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of pelting stones, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dealt with the said issue in detail by adverting to the evidence on record. It was noted that, during cross-examination, material admissions were elicited from the prosecution witnesses to the effect that neither any statements of independent witnesses had been recorded nor was any test identification parade conducted to establish the identity of the accused persons. It was also recorded that no enquiry was made from any passenger traveling in the train regarding the incident of stone pelting, hence, the identity of the respondents-accused remained un-established and it cannot be said to have been established beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt.
18. Adverting to the issue as to whether the respondent–accused had formed an unlawful assembly or not, the trial Court referred to the testimony of the witnesses and recorded a finding that, out of the alleged group of persons, only one individual, namely accused Ajay, had been shown to be apprehended from the spot, while no other respondent–accused was directly connected with the occurrence by any credible evidence. The Court further observed that there was a complete absence of independent corroboration linking the remaining accused persons with the alleged incident. It was held that the mere presence of 05 or more persons at the spot does not ipso facto establish the formation of an unlawful assembly, particularly in the absence of proof of a common object. The possibility of the said persons being mere bystanders or otherwise unconnected with any common unlawful purpose, could not be ruled out. Thus, the essential ingredients required to constitute an unlawful assembly were found to be lacking and the said charge was also repelled.
19. Thereafter, while examining the issue as to whether the accused had obstructed the Police party in discharge of their official duties and as to whether they had caused injuries to PW-2 Sub-Inspector Ranjit Singh and PW- 3 Sub-Inspector Bhagirath, the trial court made a specific reference to the medico-legal evidence on record. It was noted that Dr. Sumit Kukreja, who appeared as PW-14, opined in the medico-legal examination of Sub-Inspector Ranjit Singh that the injuries, in the nature of abrasions and complaints of pain in the chest and thigh, could possibly have been sustained due to a fall on a hard surface. The said finding has been read in light of the prosecution having failed to establish both the identity and participation of the respondents- accused in commission of the alleged offence.
20. It is thus apparent that the trial Court had considered all the evidence and had specifically dealt with the case set up by the prosecution, along with each of the charges framed against the accused, in a phased manner, and then proceeded to record finding on each aspect. The conclusions so arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be either perverse or devoid of evidentiary foundation. No material irregularity or patent illegality has been demonstrated which would warrant interference by this Court. It is a well-settled principle that an appellate Court ought not to substitute its own view in place of that taken by the trial Court, particularly when the view adopted by the trial Court is a plausible one and based on the evidence on record. Unless the findings recorded are manifestly erroneous, perverse or wholly unsupported by the evidence, the same do not ordinarily call for interference.
21. Learned counsel for the applicant, although, made sincere attempt, yet failed to draw the attention of this Court to any material illegality, substantive error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. Still further, the reasons which have been extracted above, appear to be probable and plausible.
22. In the absence of any demonstrable infirmity in the impugned judgment, this Court finds no justification to allow the instant appeal.
23. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.