Delhi District Court
State vs Anand Ors on 26 May, 2025
(Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016
FIR No. 439/10
PS : Vijay Vihar
u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
IN THE COURT OF JAGMOHAN SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
CNR No. DLNT01-000384-2012
SC No. 57606/2016
FIR No. 439/2010
Police Station : Vijay Vihar
Under Sections : 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
State
Versus
1. Anand S/o Swaraj
R/o B-9/109, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi
2. Amit S/o Ram Bharose
R/o B-67, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi
3. Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh
R/o B-9/73, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi
4. Rana Pratap S/o Narayan Singh
R/o B-9/73, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi
5. Surender Singh S/o Late Chaman Lal
R/o C-10/169, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi
6. Santosh Kumar Chaurasia
S/o Babu Lal Chaursia
R/o C-11/88, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi ......Accused
Digitally signed
JAGMOHAN by JAGMOHAN
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
15:50:12 +0530
Page 1 of 18
(Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016
FIR No. 439/10
PS : Vijay Vihar
u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
Date of FIR : 30.12.2010
Date of committal : 04.01.2013
Charge framed on : 15.07.2013
Arguments heard on : 26.05.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 26.05.2025
Decision : Conviction
Appearance:-
Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
Sh.Charanjit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused Anand,
Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh and Rana Pratap.
Sh. Suresh Tomar, Ld. Counsel for accused Surender S/o
Chaman Lal and Santosh.
JUDGMENT
Brief case of the prosecution
1. Stated briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.12.2010, DD No.76-B was telephonically received at PS Vijay Vihar upon receipt of which, SI Ramesh Thakur (PW-12) along with Ct. Surinder, Ct. Harinarayan (PW-4) Ct. Pramod, Ct. Satbir (PW-6) Ct. Ravinder (PW-5) and ASI K.N. Goud (PW-10) reached the spot, where Ct. Karambir (PW-2), Ct. Ravinder (PW-5) and Ct. Joginder (PW-9) were found in injured condition. On the identification of Ct. Karambir, accused Anand, Amit, Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh and Rana Pratap Singh were apprehended. It was also revealed that the above accused had suffered Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 15:50:20 +0530 Page 2 of 18 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC injuries due to beatings given by the public. Medical examination of the above three constables was conducted vide MLC Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-3/B and Ex. PW-3/C respectively at BSA Hospital. Thereafter complaint of Ct. Karambir (Ex. PW-2/A) was recorded to the effect that on 29.12.2010, he along with the above two constables were on patrolling duty at Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi; at around 10:15 pm, they reached pocket B-9, near Chaurasia Paan Bhandar where a secret informer met him and informed that illicit liquor was being sold at H.No.109, and if a raid was conducted immediately, the same could be seized.
2. Upon receipt of the above information, Ct. Karambir along with the above two constables reached Chaurasia Paan Bhandar and were verifying the above information and were keeping a watch on the above said house; a person emerged from the same and upon his random search, a plastic quarter of liquor having label of 'Sikandar Santara' was found. At this point, accused Anand @ Saansi, whom he (Ct. Karambir) knew already, emerged from the above house and asked him why he was troubling his customer. At this point, Ct. Karambir showed his identity card and of his accompanying police officials; after coming to know of their identity, accused Anand called his associates i.e co-accused Page 3 of 18 Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.26 15:50:27 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC Surender, Amit, Rana Pratap and Santosh calling them by their names; all the accused challenged the police party for stopping their customer and started giving beatings to them and accused Anand punched him in the nose. Ct. Karambir further stated that when Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Joginder tried to intervene, one of the accused caught Joginder; on the asking of accused Anand Saansi, accused Surender inflicted injuries upon the head and other body parts of the Ct Joginder with a baseball bat; two of the accused caught hold Ct. Ravinder; accused Rana Pratap and Amit on the instigation of accused Surender (who was brother in law of accused Anand and whom he knew already as he supplied illicit liquor at Sector-5, Rohini), picked up bricks lying on the ground and inflicted injuries with the same on Ct. Ravinder's head. As per the complaint further, at this point, other associates of Anand Saansi reached the spot and they also gave beatings to the above police officials. Out of them, accused Anand Saansi was referring to one accused as Santosh; the accused also got released the customer whom the police officials had apprehended with a quarter of illicit liquor. Seeing the above quarrel, public gathered at the spot and supported the police officials. The public also challenged the accused persons; gave beatings to them and rescued the Page 4 of 18 Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.26 15:50:38 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10
PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC above police officials. At this point, all the accused went to the house of accused Anand @Saansi.
Trial
3. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before Ld. MM, who after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the present case.
4. Considering the material available on record, Ld. Predecessors of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2013, framed charge u/s 186/353/332/333/308/34 IPC against accused persons namely Anand, Amit, Surnder Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Rana Pratap Singh and Surender Singh S/o Chaman Lal, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 01.06.2019, charge for the above offences was also framed against accused Santosh Kumar Chaurasia, to which he also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution evidence was recorded thereafter and thirteen PWs were examined.
6. Statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded thereafter during which accused Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh submitted that on 29.12.2010, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Joginder entered house of coaccused Anand under the Page 5Digitally of 18 signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.26 15:50:44 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10
PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC influence of liquor in his absence; they misbehaved with his daughter namely Archana; when she raised alarm, the neighbours and general public gathered there and hearing her noise, the public persons and neighbours beat the above said police officials; in order to avoid the consequences of offences committed by them, they implicated him and other coaccused in the present case in order to put undue pressure upon him. Accused Rana Pratap, Amit and Anand also took similar pleas. Accused Santosh and Surender Singh S/o Chaman Lal pleaded innocence.
7. Accused Anand examined himself as DW-1. Appreciation of evidence
8. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also perused the record carefully.
9. It is settled law that in a criminal case, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the said burden never shifts. Evidence led by the prosecution may now be examined in the light of above settled legal position.
10.PW-2 Ct. Karambir deposed on the same lines as his complaint Ex. PW-2/A referred to above and also identified all the accused correctly in the Court. PW-5 HC Ravinder and PW-9 Ct. Joginder also corroborated his testimony and Page 6 of 18 Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.26 15:50:52 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC also correctly identified all the accused persons in the court. It also emerged during their testimonies that Alto car in which co accused reached the spot on the asking of accused Anand @ Saasi was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/H; ten brick stones used by the accused Amit and Rana Pratap in assaulting Ct. Ravinder were also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/I. the baseball bat was recovered from the house of accused Anand at the instance of accused Surender S/o Narayan Singh vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/J. Blood stained clothes of Ct. Ravinder i.e orange and white colour shirt were also seized. The same were produced during the testimony of PW-2 Ct. Karambir and were identified by him correctly as Ex. P-1. Inner wear and handkerchief belonging to PW-5 HC Ravinder were similarly seized by the IO and were correctly identified by PW-2 as Ex. PW2 (colly). PW-5 HC Ravinder and PW-9 Ct. Joginder also deposed on the same lines.
11.PW-2 further deposed thaat four accused persons also namely Anand, Surender S/o Narayan Singh, Amit and Rana Pratap were arrested from the spot on the same day. Two bricks stones recovered from the spot were also correctly identified by him as Ex. P3 (colly) and the baseball bast was correctly identified as Ex. P-4.
Digitally signedJAGMOHAN by JAGMOHAN SINGH SINGH Page 7 of+0530 18 Date: 2025.05.26 15:51:00 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
12.The testimonies of the above injured constables are clear, cogent, truthful and inspire confidence of the Court. They corroborate each other and are also corroborated by other PWs. All the above witnesses were subjected to cross examination on behalf of the defence but nothing material emerged therefrom to be of any help to the defence.
13.PW-3 Ms. Deepti Bhall, CMO BSA Hospital, who examined Ct. Karambir, Ct. Joginder and Ct. Ravinder Kumar on 29.12.2010, proved their MLC as Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-3/B and Ex. PW-3/C respectively as per which the nature of injury suffered by Ct. Karambir was opined as grievous and he also suffered fracture of the nasal bone. Nature of injuries suffered by Ct. Joginder and Ct. Ravinder were opined to be simple. She further deposed that on 30.12.2010, she also examined accused Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh (vide MLC No. Ex. PW-3/D), accused Rana Pratap Singh (vide MLC Ex. PW-3/E), accused Amit (vide MLC Ex. 3/F) and accused Anand (vide MLC Ex. PW-3/G).
14. PW-7 Dr. Deepika Sethi, ENT Specialist , Dr. BSA Hospital deposed on behalf of the Dr. Sushil, Sr. Resident of the said hospital who had left its services and proved expert opinion on the MLCs of Ct. Karambir and Ct. Joginder.
Digitally
signed by
JAGMOHAN
JAGMOHAN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.05.26
15:51:06
+0530
Page 8 of 18
(Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016
FIR No. 439/10
PS : Vijay Vihar
u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
15.PW-12 Retired Inspector Ramesh Thakur, who was IO of the case deposed about the investigation carried out by him and also proved arrest memo of accused Surender S/o Chaman Lal as Ex. PW-12/B. He also identified all the accused persons in the court.
16.PW-13 A.K. Lall, who was ACP Rohini Sub Division on the date of the incident, proved complaint Ex. PW-13/A made by him u/s 195 Cr. PC in respect of the offence u/s 186/353/34 IPC.
17.Other PWs also deposed about the role played by them in the investigation of the present case.
18.From the combined reading of the testimonies of the PWs, particularly of the injured constables themselves and from the documents proved on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the prosecution against accused Anand, Amit, Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh and Rana Pratap Singh stands clearly established.
19.As against the remaining two accused i.e Surender Singh S/o Chaman Lal and Santosh Kumar Chaurasia, in the considered opinion of this Court, the case of prosecution appears doubtful and both the above accused deserve benefit of doubt. This is so because while the presence of the former four accused on the spot, besides being deposed by the three Page 9 of 18 Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.26 15:51:14 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10
PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC injured police officials along with the role played by them in the commission of the alleged offence, also gets corroborated by the fact that they all were also got medically examined by PW-3 Deepti Bhalla on 30.12.2010 i.e in the morning of the day following the incident and all of them gave alleged history of assault upon them in the intervening night. The injuries suffered by the above accused are also explained by the three injured constables on the ground that public had gathered on the spot, had challenged the accused as to why they were beating police officials, had given beatings to them and thereby rescued the policemen.
20.As regard the other two accused, while accused Surender S/o Chaman Lal was arrested on 09.09.2011 i.e almost eight months after the incident, accused Santosh Kumar Chaurasia, who was owner of Chaurasia Paan Bhandar was summoned vide order dated 29.04.2019 of Ld. Sessions Court in terms of Section 319 Cr.PC. It is thus clear that none of them was arrested from the spot nor immediately or shortly after the incident. Further, there is nothing in the testimony of the PWs as to on what basis identity of accused Surender S/o Chaman Lal was established as one of the assailants. There is also not a word under which circumstances and on whose identification the said accused Page 10 of 18 Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.26 15:51:24 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC was arrested. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that any judicial TIP of the above accused was conducted to establish his identity as one of the assailants. In these circumstances, reasonable doubts arises in the mind of the court about culpability of accused Surender Singh S/o Chaman Lal, the benefit of which must go to him.
21.Similarly, as regards accused Santosh Kumar Chaurasia also, there is nothing in the testimony of the three injured constables except the fact that the accused persons were calling one of their associates by the name Santosh. As pointed out earlier accused, Santosh Kumar Chaurasia was neither arrested from the spot nor immediately or soon after the incident. In his complaint Ex. PW-2/A which is the earlist version of the incident, Ct. Karambir only spoke about accused Santosh. There is nothing in the testimony of the three injured constables that the above said Santosh was the same person as accused Santosh Kumar Chaurasia. There is another circumstances, which goes in favour of the said accused. As per the case of the prosecution, all the three injured were local policemen and were on patrolling duty. PW-2 also deposed that house of accused Anand @ Saasi, in which illicit liquor was being sold, was near Chaurasia Paan Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH Page 11 of 18 Date:
SINGH 2025.05.26
15:51:31
+0530
(Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016
FIR No. 439/10
PS : Vijay Vihar
u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
Bhandar. Thus, the injured being local policemen were well acquainted with the area.
22.PW-2 ASI Karambir also stated during his cross examination that when he along with Ct. Joginder and Ravinder reached near Chaursia Paan Bhandar at the time of the incident, it was open. However, by the time, IO reached there, its owner had closed the said shop. This statement implied that PW-2 was well aware about the identity of Santosh Kumar Chaurasia, who was the above said owner of Chaurasia Paan Bhandar. Under these circumstances, if accused Santosh spoken about by the other accused persons was the same as the owner of Chaurasia Paan Bhandar, there would have been no difficulty for the injured policemen to identify him as one of the assailants, if not immediately then shortly after the incident. However, the fact remains that accused Santosh Kumar Chaurasia was not chargesheeted. Under these circumstances serious doubts emerge in the mind of the Court about the identity of the accused spoken of as Santosh by the other accused persons. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Santosh Kumar Chaurasia was the same Santosh who was spoken of by the Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN other accused persons as one of the assailants.
JAGMOHAN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.05.26
15:51:38 +0530
Page 12 of 18
(Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016
FIR No. 439/10
PS : Vijay Vihar
u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
Defence evidence and arguments:
23. Shri Charanjeet Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused Anand, Surender Singh S/o Narayan, Rana Pratap and Amit have argued as follows:-
(i) PW Ct. Karambir deposed that he knew accused Anand already and that the said accused inflicted injuries upon him.
However, as per his MLC, alleged history of beaten by the public was mentioned and no name of any accused persons was mentioned. Same is the case with MLCs of Ct. Joginder and Ct. Ravinder. This is a material contradiction which shows falsele implication of the accused.
(ii) PW-2 Karambir also deposed that public had gathered at the spot. This coupled with the alleged history of beating by the public appearing on the MLCs of all the three injured constables makes it highly probable that the injuries were suffered by them at the hands of the public and that the accused had no role in the same;
(iii) The alleged customer who was apprehended by the above police officials with illicit liquor was neither made a witness nor the said liquor was seized from him;
Digitally
signed by
JAGMOHAN
JAGMOHAN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.05.26
15:51:44
+0530
Page 13 of 18
(Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016
FIR No. 439/10
PS : Vijay Vihar
u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
(iv) As per the seizure memo Ex. PW-5/B, a pink colour shirt with white strips belonging to Ct. Ravinder was seized. However, during evidence, an orange and white colour shirt (Ex. P-1) was produced which casts serious doubt on the case of the prosecution;
(v) The baseball bat (Ex.P-4) was produced in the Court with a broken seal on the pullanda.
(vi) As per PW-2 ASI Karambir, he along with other two constables reached the spot at 9:45 pm on the day of the incident. However, the time of his MLC is recorded as 9:30 pm which also shows falsity of allegations.
24. The above arguments may now be considered. It is correct that as per the MLCs of the injured constable, alleged history of beaten up by the public is mentioned. However, at the same place, it is also mentioned that both of them also had history of loss of consciousness and also of vomiting. It is thus, clear that at the time they were taken to BSA Hospital for treatment, they were in injured condition due to the injuries inflicted by the accused persons. Thus, in such a medical condition, it was too much to expect from the injured constables that they would narrate clearly the sequence of events, the names of the accused persons as well Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 15:51:50 +0530 Page 14 of 18 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC as the role played by them. In view of the same, the above argument is of no avail to the defence.
25. As regards non joining of the alleged customer who was apprehended with a quarter of illicit liquor, it has emerged from the testimony of the injured constables that when the accused persons came on the scene, they got released the above said customer from their custody. Therefore, it is natural that the above said alleged customer was not made a witness by the prosecution and the quarter containing illicit liquor could also not be seized from the spot.
26. It is correct that as per seizure memo Ex. PW-5/B a pink colour shirt belonging to PW/HC Raviner was seized. It is also correct that the when the said shirt (Ex. P-1) was produced in the Court, during the testimony of PW-2 ASI Karambir, it was stated to be orange in colour. In the considered opinion of this Court, however, the above discrepancy is minor in nature and does not go to the out of the prosecution case. Further, no suggestion was given during cross examination of PW Ravinder that no shirt belonging to him was seized or that the shirt eventually produced in the Court was different from the one seized. Under these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the above argument is also of no help to the accused.
Page 15 of 18 Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN SINGH JAGMOHAN Date: SINGH 2025.05.26 15:51:55 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors. SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10 PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
27. It is also correct that when baseball bat was produced during the testimony of PW2 ASI Karambir, seal on its pullanda was found broken. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said discrepancy is also minor in nature. Further, the three injured constables have consistently deposed that the accused Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh inflicted injuries upon the head of Ct. Joginder with the baseball bat and as per seizure memo Ex. PW2/J, the said baseball was recovered from the house of the said accused. Under these circumstances, merely seal on the pullanda containing above bat found broken is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is also worth noting that baseball bat is a heavy object and during its transportation from and to the malkhana of the police station, the seal might be broken. Accordingly, the above argument is also of no avail to the defence.
28. The last argument is factually in correct as PW-2 stated in his cross examination that on the day of incident, they had left the PS at about 8:30 pm -9:00 pm on foot for patrolling duty. Further, as per his MLC Ex. PW-3/A, date and time of his arrival at the hospital has been mentioned as 29.12.2010 at Digitally signed JAGMOHAN by JAGMOHAN 11:45 pm. SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 15:52:01 +0530 Page 16 of 18 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors.
SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
29. Accused Anand deposed as DW-1 that on 29.12, the year he did not remember, four persons came at Sector-5, Rohini and gave beatings to his daughter, they all were under the influence of liquor; he was not present at the spot and was telephonically informed by his wife; when he reached the spot, the quarrel was over
30. The above defence may now be examined. The same leaks credence for various reasons. Firstly, the accused did not state the year of the incident. Secondly, the defence being in nature of alibi, it does not suffice to say that accused was not present at the spot as negative evidence is not contemplated under the evidence act. In support of the said plea, the accused was required to show by leading positive evidence, at the scale of pre ponderance of probabilities, that at the date and time of the alleged offence, he was present elsewhere. However, as is amply clear from the bare perusal of the above testimony, the accused has miserably failed to do so.
Decision
31. In view of above discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused Anand, Amit, Surender Singh S/o Narayan Singh and Rana Pratap Singh.
Page 17 of 18 Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 15:52:14 +0530 (Judgment) State Vs. Anand & Ors. SC No. 57606/2016 FIR No. 439/10 PS : Vijay Vihar u/s. 186/353/332/308/333 IPC
Accordingly, they are convicted for the offence u/s 186/353/332/333/308/34 IPC. As against accused, Surender Singh S/o Chaman Lal and Santosh Kumar Chaurasia, however, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the said accused are acquitted of the charged offences.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open Court JAGMOHAN
JAGMOHAN SINGH
on 26.05.2025 SINGH Date:
2025.05.26
15:52:20
+0530
(JAGMOHAN SINGH)
A.S.J-03/ North,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Page 18 of 18