Delhi District Court
State vs . Jasvinder Singh Etc. on 19 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02, EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Vinod Joshi, DJS
State Vs. Jasvinder Singh Etc.
FIR No. 937/2014
PS. Geeta Colony
U/s. 160 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) CIS No. of the case : 5432/2016
2) The date of commission of offence : 19.12.2014
3) The name & parentage of accused : (1) Jasvinder Singh,
S/o Sh. Narender Singh
(2) Harjinder Singh,
` S/o Sh. Narender Singh
(3) Jagmeet Kaur,
W/o Sh. Jasvinder
Singh
(4) Baljeet Kaur,
W/o Sh. Harjinder
Singh
5) Offence involved : 160 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order :
8) The date of such order : 19.04.2022
Date of Institution : 16.03.2015
Judgment reserved on : 18.04.2022
Judgment announced on : 19.04.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
01. The present case was registered with the allegations that on 19.12.2014, at about 01:20 PM, on road in front of House No. 12/152, Geeta Colony, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Geeta Colony, accused FIR No. 937/14 State Vs Jasvinder Singh Etc. 1 of 7 persons namely namely Jasvinder Singh, Harjinder Singh, Jagmeet Kaur and Baljeet Kaur were found fighting in a public place, thereby disturbing the public peace and hence they have committed 'Affray' , punishable under Section 160 IPC.
02. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable U/s 160 IPC was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. Accordingly, a formal notice for commission of offence punishable U/Sec. 160 IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. In order to prove the allegations against the accused persons, the prosecution has got examined four witnesses.
04. PW-1, WHC Babita, deposed that on 19.12.2014, she was posted as Constable at PS Geeta colony and on that day, she along with HC Subhash and Ct. Guddu had reached at House No. 12/151, Geeta Colony, Dehi where they saw that accused persons were quarreling with each other in front of the said house and thereafter, the said accused persons were taken to the PS and from PS, she had taken the lady accused persons to the hospital for getting their medical examination at SDN Hospital and after obtaining the MLC, she returned to PS and handed over the MLCs of accused persons to IO/HC Subhash. She deposed that IO recorded her statement.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as she was not disclosing the complete facts. During cross-examination by Ld. APP, the said witness admitted that she along with HC Subhash and Ct. Guddu Ram had reached at House No. 12/152, Geeta Colony, Delhi on 19.12.2014. She also admitted that IO had apprehended the accused persons with their help and he had taken the accused Baljeet Kaur and Jasmeet Kaur to SDN Hospital for getting them medically examined. She admitted that after obtained the MLCs, she had handed over the same to IO/ASI Rajender Singh at the spot and that the IO had arrested the accused Jaswinder Singh and Harjinder Singh in her presence. She also admitted that she could not state the said facts during her examination-in-chief due to lapse of time. This FIR No. 937/14 State Vs Jasvinder Singh Etc. 2 of 7 witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court. This witness was cross-examined by respective Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
05. PW-2 HC ASI Subhash Chand deposed that on 19.12.2014, he was posted at PS Geeta Colony as Head Constable and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM and on receipt of DD no. 19A and 20A, he along with ASI Rajender, Ct. Guddu and WCt. Babita went to House No. 12/152, Geeta Colony, Delhi and saw that some persons were fighting with each other and disturbing the public peace by such fighting. He further deposed that after inquiry, the names of accused persons were revealed as Harvinder, Jasvinder, Jagmeet Kaur and Baljit Kaur. He further deposed that accused Jagmeet and Baljit Kaur were injured and they were sent to SDN Hospital for their medical examination. This witness has clarified in his deposition that the correct name of Harvinder is Harjinder. He further deposed that after sometime, Jagmeet Kaur and Baljit Kaur along with WCt. Babita and Ct. Guddu returned back to the spot after getting them medically examined. He further deposed that ASI Rajender prepared teharir and handed over it to Ct. Guddu and sent him to PS for registration of FIR. He further deposed that Ct. Guddu went to PS, got the FIR registered and came back to the spot along with copy of FIR and original teharir and handed over the same to ASI Rajender. He deposed that ASI Rajender had arrested the accused Jasvinder and Harjinder vide arrest memos Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B and personally searched them vide memos Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D respectively. He deposed that accused persons namely Baljit Kaur and Jagmeet Kaur were released on personal bonds. He deposed that IO recorded his statement. This witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
06. PW3 Ct. Guddu Ram has deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW-1 W/HC Babita and PW2 ASI Subhash Chand and hence, his statement is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. This witness has deposed during his deposition that he cannot identify the accused FIR No. 937/14 State Vs Jasvinder Singh Etc. 3 of 7 individually by their names, however, he stated that all the accused persons are present in the Court. This witness has been cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
07. PW-4 SI Rajender Singh is the IO of this case, who deposed about his departure from the PS to the spot. He also deposed about preparation of rukka Ex. PW4/A, registration of FIR through Ct. Guddu and preparation of site plan Ex. PW/B. He also deposed about the arrest of accused persons namely Jasvinder and Harjinder and preparation of their arrest memos vide Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. He also deposed about preparation of personal search memos of accused persons namely Jasvinder and Harjinder vide memos Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D. He also deposed that he recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the charge-sheet and filed it before the Court. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
08. During trial, the accused persons admitted the factum of registration of FIR in the present case Ex. PX1, without admitting the contents of the same.
09. After prosecution evidence, the PE was closed. Separate statements of accused persons U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C r/w 281 CrPC were recorded on 18.04.2022 wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against them in toto and submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Accused persons chose not to lead evidence in defence. Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments.
10. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and the respective Ld Counsels for the accused persons and have also perused the record.
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution FIR No. 937/14 State Vs Jasvinder Singh Etc. 4 of 7 appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
12. In the instant case, the Ld. APP has argued that in view of categorical testimony of the witnesses, the offence alleged against the accused persons stand established and the accused persons deserve to be convicted.
13. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsels that the accused persons have been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the police did not bother to make any public person, a witness the incident despite there being presence of public persons at the spot.
14. From material on record and the evidences of the witnesses recorded I am of the opinion that there are loopholes in the story of prosecution which has been left unplugged and accordingly, the case of the prosecution fails for the reasons discussed below.
15. It has come on record from the MLCs of the accused Baljeet and Jagmeet that they have sustained simple injuries during the alleged incident. The IO/PW4 during his cross-examination has failed to answer as to why Section 323 IPC has not been invoked despite clear evidence on record in respect of the same. It reflects the casual approach of the IO towards the investigation of alleged incident of 19.12.2014.
16. Despite public witnesses being available at the spot, as revealed from the testimonies of of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, no efforts seem to have been made to make them join the investigation. The IO, PW-4, during his cross examination has stated that he requested the public persons to join the investigation but none agreed to join the same. He further states that no notice could be served to the said public persons and he did not note down the particulars of such public persons. Even if, the public witnesses had refused to join the police raiding party despite request, as stated by the IO/PW-4. He at least should have reduced their names and addresses in writing if not inclined to take action against them under section 187 I.P.C. Absence of the efforts have introduced an element of doubt in the case of FIR No. 937/14 State Vs Jasvinder Singh Etc. 5 of 7 prosecution.
17. In Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1989 (2) RCR 504 it was held that where the IO has failed to even note down the names and addresses of the persons who have refused to join as public witnesses, coupled with the fact that no action was taken against them, the case is rendered doubtful.
18. Affray has been defined by section 159 IPC. It provides as when two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to "commit an affray". Section 160 provides "Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both".
19. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H) (DB) ,1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662).
"Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an accused can be convicted)."
20. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P., (SC) 1976 A.I.R. (SC) 966 that while prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by FIR No. 937/14 State Vs Jasvinder Singh Etc. 6 of 7 establishing a mere preponderance of probability. Accused is not expected to prove his innocence to the hilt. If prosecution story is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
21. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence alleged against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. Suspicion how so ever strong it may be, cannot replace the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused persons. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus. The evidence available on record is not sufficient to substantiate the guilt of the accused persons. Accordingly the accused persons namely Jasvinder Singh, Harjinder Singh, Baljeet Kaur and Jagmeet Kaur deserves acquittal and they are acquitted for which they have been charged.
Digitally
signed by
Vinod Vinod Joshi
Announced in open court (VINOD JOSHI) Date:
on 19-04-2022 Joshi 2022.04.19
MM-02(East)/KKD Courts/Delhi
17:33:34
+0530
FIR No. 937/14 State Vs Jasvinder Singh Etc. 7 of 7