Vipin Bihari Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

O.P. Jain, J.—Mr. S.F.A. Naqvi is present for the revisionist and A.G.A. for the State.

This revision is directed against the order dated 21.9.1998 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Agra, by which a complaint has been dismissed u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure.

According to the complaint, 10 accused including 3 Sub-Inspectors and 2 Constables entered the house of the complainant in the

night intervening 17/18.3.1998 and they committed robbery and took away Rs. 20,000 cash and some ornaments. They also arrested complainant''s sons Ram Sewak and Ghanshyam.

The Special Judge recorded the statement of complainant Vipin Bihari Lai and 4 witnesses u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and found the case to be false.

The reasons given by the Special Judge are that the complainant and his sons are involved in a case u/s 302/201/394, I.P.C. registered at police station Babina and the present complaint has been filed to pressurise the police and to create a defence in favour of complainant and his sons, who are accused in the case registered at Babina.

The Special Judge has further observed that according to the complainant and his witnesses, the Sub-Inspectors had name plates affixed on their uniform and with the aid of name plates, their names were ascertained. It has been observed by the learned Special Judge that this is improbable that while committing robbery, the police officers did not take any precaution to conceal their identity.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited Balraj Khanna and Others Vs. Moti Ram, ; Ram Ekabal Pandey Vs. Kapildeo Rai and Others, and Shri D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 1977 JT 1. On the basis of these authorities, it has been argued that the Special Judge should examine the record with a view to find out whether a prima facie case is made out. The Court is not required to examine the evidence with a view to find out whether it is sufficient for conviction or not.

There is no dispute about the principle. The question is whether the allegation made by the complainant in the complaint are believable. This Court finds that the allegations are inherently improbable. It is difficult to believe that 3 Sub-Inspectors, 2 Constables and some private persons conspired together to commit robbery at the house of the complainant. Admittedly the police went to the house of the complainant to arrest him and his sons, who were wanted in a case of murder and robbery.

It may also be mentioned that on the very next day, i.e., on 19.3.1998 Priyesh Kumar, who is close relative of the complainant, sent a telegram to District Magistrate, Jhansi. and Senior Superintendent of Police. Jhansi. The telegram is Annexure-7. In this telegram it was alleged by Priyesh Kumar that the police forcibly took away Ram Sewak, Krishna and Ghanshyam from their houses. It is significant to note that in this telegram dated 19.3.1998, there is not a whisper of robbery being committed by the police. Priyesh Kumar was examined as a witness u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and in that statement, he has deposed as if he was an eye-witness to the incident of robbery and yet he did not make any such allegation in the telegram.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any force in this revision and it is dismissed summarily.