Delhi District Court
State vs . Nand Lal on 7 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUJ AGRAWAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
EAST: KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
STATE Vs. NAND LAL
FIR No. : 282/18
P.S. : New Ashok Nagar
U/s. : U/s 160 IPC
STATE VS. NAND LAL
JUDGMENT
ANew Number of the 4509/18 case B Name of the HC Pratap Singh complainant
C Name of the accused Nand Lal S/o Sh. Ayodhyay & his parentage and Prasad, R/o B-18, Gali no. 1, East address Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
D Offence Complained U/s 33 (A) of Delhi Excise Act of E Date of commission 18.06.2015 of offence.
F Date of Institution 21.12.2018 G Offence Charged U/s 160 IPC H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty I Order Reserved on Not reserved J Date of 07.11.2019 Pronouncement K Final Order Acquitted FIR No. 282/18 State Vs Nand Lal Page 1/9
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. In brief the story of prosecution is that on 18.06.2018, at about 11.30 AM, at BSES office Vasundra within the jurisdiction of PS New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, accused alongwith co-accused (since not arrested) committed affray by abusing each other in filthy language in public place and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 160 IPC.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court. Accused was summoned vide order dt. 21.12.2018 and on appearance of accused, copies were supplied to him. After completion of necessary formalities, a notice u/s 160 IPC was framed against accused on 18.02.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution to prove its case, examined three witnesses.
The relevant and material extract of their testimony is being discussed in the following paragraphs.
FIR No. 282/18 State Vs Nand Lal Page 2/9
4. PW-1 is ASI Om Prakash, who deposed that on 18.06.2018, he was on emergency duty, that on that day, he received PCR call regarding quarrel and thereafter, he alongwith HC Raj Kumar reached at the spot where HC Pratap was already present, that HC Pratap handed over accused Nand Lal to him and he recorded statement of HC Pratap and thereafter, he alongwith accused went to the PS, that accused was medically examined, that he made endorsement on the complaint Ex. PW- 1/A bearing his signature at point A, that thereafter, present investigation was marked to ASI Arvind Kumar. He correctly identified the accused.
5. PW-2 is ASI Arvind Kumar, who deposed that on 18.06.2018, he reached at the spot alongwith HC Raj Kumar where he met with HC Pratap Singh and ASI Om Prakash, that he prepared site plan at the instance of HC Pratap Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A.
6. PW-3 ASI Pratap Singh is the complainant and star witness of the prosecution. He deposed that on 18.06.2018, he received FIR No. 282/18 State Vs Nand Lal Page 3/9 a call from HC Kapil regarding quarrel near BSES office, Dharamshila Hospital, that he reached at the spot at about 11:30 AM, that he saw few peoples were using filthy language and abusing each other, that he removed the mob and apprehended one person, that ASI Om Prakash came at the spot and he recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point B, that IO wrote one Tehrir and gave him to register the FIR, that after registration of FIR, he gave copy of FIR and tehrir to ASI Arvind and thereafter they both came at the spot where IO prepared site plan. He was correctly identified the accused. He further deposed that he only heard the voice of accused who was abusing but he did not see his face while he was abusing.
6(a) This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State with the permission of court. During his cross examination, he deposed that he saw accused while he was abusing other BSES officers, that accused was stating that "hamari Delhi State Workers Union hai, jo hamare khilaf awaaj uthayega hum use sabak sikhayenge". He further admitted that public persons FIR No. 282/18 State Vs Nand Lal Page 4/9 were raising objection against the language used by the mob and accused, that a few persons were fighting with each other and accused was involved in fighting, that one of the accused managed to escape and we managed to apprehend accused Nand Lal, that IO recorded his statement, that he made contradictions in the testimony due to lapse of time. 6(b) During his cross examination by defence, he deposed that IO requested 10-15 persons to join the investigation but non agreed. He further deposed that IO did not check whether any CCTV camera was installed or not in his presence. He admitted that he did not see any quarrel at the spot.
7. Record transpires that during course of trial, accused admitted registration of FIR, vide his separate statement in terms of Sec. 294 Cr.PC. Therefore, the said documents can be read in evidence without formal proof of same.
8. On conclusion of PE, statement of accused was recorded wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated. Accused FIR No. 282/18 State Vs Nand Lal Page 5/9 chose not to lead any defence evidence.
9. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the accused and perused the record.
10. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry has been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
11. Be that as it may, the prosecution has relied upon the FIR No. 282/18 State Vs Nand Lal Page 6/9 testimony of PW3 i.e. ASI Pratap Singh who is the complainant as well as star witness of prosecution, to prove its case. Perusal of his testimony however reveals that he is not a truthful witness. It is evident from record that in his examination in chief, he merely deposed that when he reached at the spot, he saw few public persons using filthy language and abusing each other. It is clear that he did not attribute any specific role to accused Nand Lal and merely gave a general statement regarding the public abusing each other. However, during his cross-examination by ld. APP, the witness took a somersault and deposed that he saw accused abusing BSES officers. He further deposed that few public persons were fighting with each other and accused was involved in the said fighting. However, during his cross- examination by defence, he again resiled from his version and admitted that he did not see any quarrel on the spot. It is clear that witness has taken vacillating stand in the witness box and therefore, he cannot be relied upon. The testimony of PW3 is doubtful to say the least and it is cones away from being of stellar or of unimpeachable quality and therefore requires corroboration in material particulars from independent FIR No. 282/18 State Vs Nand Lal Page 7/9 witnesses.
12. However no such corroboration has come on record as no independent public witness has either been cited or examined by prosecution. As per PW-3, 10-15 public persons were requested to join the investigation by the IO but none of them agreed. However, no written notice was served upon them to join the proceedings in the present case or to face action U/sec. 187 IPC. Therefore, it is clear that sincere efforts were not made to join independent witnesses despite their availability which causes a serious dent in the story of the prosecution. The reliance is placed on Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
13. To conclude, the relevant DD entries have not been brought on record so as to prove presence of police officials at the spot, the testimony of complainant is not reliable and has remained uncorroborated. No independent public witness was joined in the FIR No. 282/18 State Vs Nand Lal Page 8/9 investigation so as to lend credence to prosecution version. As a cumulative effect, a reasonable doubt has crept into the version of prosecution and it has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Nand Lal stands acquitted of the charges u/s 160 IPC leveled against him.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.11.2019 (ANUJ AGRAWAL) ACMM (EAST)/KKD/07.11.2019 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date:
2019.11.07 01:17:52 +0530 FIR No. 282/18 State Vs Nand Lal Page 9/9