A man who made a call to the Police Control Room from inside the Vasant Kunj police station accusing a sub-inspector there of inaction on a complaint of assault he had lodged, thereby earning the wrath of the police officer who subsequently implicated him and his son in a false attempt-to-murder case, has been relieved of his nearly-six-year-long ordeal by a Saket sessions court which acquitted the duo.
The prosecution case was that on October 30, 2005, Pawan Kumar helped by his father, Deen Dayal, stabbed the main prosecution witness Rajan, as his father, Rajbir Singh, watched on.
As many as nine police officers including Sub-Inspector Virender Prakash deposed as prosecution witnesses.
Writing his order, Additional Sessions Judge Gurvinder Pal Singh noted that the embellishments in the evidence on record “project every likelihood of planting of knife” upon Pawan Kumar and “false implication” of the two accused due to “previous enmity” nursed by the two main prosecution witnesses “at the instance” of SI Prakash.
In its order, the court observed that SI Prakash was “annoyed by the making of a PCR call” on October 26 by Deen Dayal following the Sub-Inspector's inaction on Dayal's complaint, regarding two men trespassing into his house and assaulting him.
Dayal had told the court that he was made to wait inside the Vasant Kunj police station by SI Prakash, all night, on the complaint. Around 3-25 a.m., Dayal, after learning that SI Prakash went to sleep, made a PCR call specifically mentioning that Vasant Kunj police stations officers had not taken any action against his assailants, and instead was harassing him.
The next day, he was forced by the police officers to compromise the matter but was warned that he would be implicated in a false case for making the PCR call.
“Since, two views are possible, one that accused persons assaulted Rajan as alleged, and committed crime for which they have been charged and the other that they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity by Rajan and Rajbir Singh at the instance of SI Prakash, the latter view favouring the accused is being preferred and adopted…The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt,” Judge Singh wrote in his order.
The police had obtained a blood-stained T-shirt of the victim but the court pointed out that the blood samples of the victim Rajan and accused persons were not sent for forensic investigation as a result of which no logical conclusion of accused persons being responsible for charged offence could be arrived at.
The judge also observed several discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the various prosecution witnesses regarding the place of arrest, time of arrest, place of recovery of weapon used, time accused were sent for recording medico-legal certificates, and the name of the constable who recorded the DD entry, following which a PCR van rushed to the altercation spot and took Rajan to hospital.
“Cumulative effect of the entire above discussion is that the interested material witnesses Rajan and Rajbir Singh have made considerable improvements in their testimonies, which when seen in the light of the other evidence and material on record embedded with the severe infirmities and contradictions, elicited above, put credibility and reliability of these material witnesses under cloud of doubt, bringing them under category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witnesses.”
The judge also had a word of appreciation for amicus curiae Arun Satija who appeared as defence counsel for the accused.
Keywords: Delhi crime case