* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 21st January, 2011
Date of Order: 7th February, 2011
+CRL. M.C. 2459 OF 2010
%
07.02.2011
PAWAN DABAS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP with Inspector
Asha Badola.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner has made a prayer for transfer of investigation of the matter in question to Anti Homicide Cell, Crime Branch of Delhi Police and for registration of an FIR in respect of death of Poojan Dabas (deceased) under Section 302/120-B/201/34 IPC making two of the friends of the deceased as accused.
2. On 4th July, 2010 at about 11.00 pm in the night Poojan Dabas and his two friends namely Naveen and Bhupinder had gone to wine shop near Tikri Boarder. After consuming beer there they all proceeded on motorcycle. On 5th July, 2010 at 00.45 hours in the night, Poojan Dabas was run over by a goods train at Nizampur Phatak. Information about the accident was received at Railway Police Post - Kishan Ganj of Police Station - Sarai Rohilla through Mr. Jitender Kumar, Assistant Crl. M.C.2459 of 2010 Page 1 of 3 Station Master, Ghewara. A PCR call was also received by police from brother of the deceased about the accident. Later on petitioner made a complaint to SHO for registering a case of murder against Naveen and Bhupinder alleging that it was not an accident but a murder. After this complaint a detailed investigation and inquiry was conducted into the allegations. Inquiry from a worker Sunil of wine shop near Tikri Boarder revealed that all the three friends had gone there at about 11.20 pm when wine shop was about to be closed and beer was bought from the wine shop. It was raining at that time. Two of the boys were not wearing shirt. They left place at 11.45 pm after consuming beer. No quarrel took place at wine shop when the boys consumed beer. Statement of Gate Man Dharamvir revealed that he was on duty on that night and on receipt of information from Station Master Bahadur Garh about a goods grain coming on down line, he closed the gate and made the signal down. He saw two boys crossing the railway line with a motor cycle on foot through one barrier and stopping at second barrier, the third boy following them, was behind. While both the boys were waiting at 2nd barrier, the third boy was run over by the train and he died on the spot. He had shouted at the boys asking them to stop as the train was coming with speed but the boy did not listen and continued to cross the track. After the accident he informed about the accident to Station Master Bahadur Garh. Later on it was found that the name of boy who died was Poojan of village Kanjhawala. The IO also conducted practical exercise to ascertain if the barrier was closed, a motorcycle could pass from under the barrier or not and the IO found that motorcycle could pass from under the barrier even if it was closed and the height of barrier was not a hindrance to the passing of motorcycle. The Bajaj Motorcycle, the three friends had used was owned by Sukdev. The practical exercise was conducted with the help of same make of motorcycle. Investigation also did not reveal any kind of enmity among the three friends or any animosity or motive of throwing Poojan Dabas on railway track deliberately.
Crl. M.C.2459 of 2010 Page 2 of 3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he had also physically verified and found that the same make of motorcycle could not have passed from under the barrier when it was closed. He submitted that the incident was not an accident but a murder.
4. I find no reason to disbelieve the investigation done by the police in the matter. It has not been pointed out if any of the police officials had any motive in derailing the investigation or being unfair. No previous enmity etc. has been pointed out between deceased and his other friends who were accompanying him. Under these circumstances, I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
FEBRUARY 07 , 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
Crl. M.C.2459 of 2010 Page 3 of 3